This Week's Attitude
National Primary Day Might Shorten Long Campaign Cycle
By Neil S. Friedman

In presidential politics the more the merrier maxim is alive and well. Never before in American history has there been a presidential race that offered so many choices and started so early. The perennial inaugural presidential primary in New Hampshire is more than ten months away, yet more than a dozen candidates have already announced or committed to the 2008 race for the White House. There is at least another ten who could supplement the crowded field. In contrast, at least three candidates have either quit or opted to remain on the sidelines for various reasons, the least of which is lack of funds.

But, even at this premature point, it's hardly been merrier, just more of the same old wine (or should that be whine) in brand new bottles as candidates in both parties have already resorted to tasteless swipes at their opponents.

As I put the finishing touches on this column, former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor Fred Thompson (he portrays the Manhattan district attorney) announced he's considering joining the GOP race and Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel announced he might become a Republican candidate at a later date.

For the first time since 1928, both major parties will have open contests for the Presidential nomination without an incumbent - president or vice-president - seeking re-election or even a party's nomination. Perhaps that's the primary reason - as the late Jimmy Durante said in his inimitable, gravely New Yorkese - everybody wants ta get into da act . Not that it matters because even if George Bush could run for a third term, he'd most likely lose - by a wide margin - if his current 35 percent approval rating is any indication. And, if Vice President Dick Cheney decided to run…well, his disreputable reputation precedes him. Heck, he couldn't even get elected dogcatcher.

At present, the two frontrunners are Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and former N.Y. mayor Rudy Giuliani for the Republicans. In recent polls, they lead their respective opponents, including Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John McCain and ex-governor Mitt Romney, by narrow and wide margins, depending on the challenger and the poll. Naturally, each candidate's campaign never fails to spin the favorable results into a big deal.

But let's get real. A 15-point lead in the polls at this point is like having a 15-length lead out of the gate at the Belmont Stakes. There's a long, long way to go and it's more sensible to pace oneself now than run out of steam - and money later. Sadly, the latter is a vital political prerequisite that tends to eclipse the principle of a government by, of and for the people.

Each election costs more than the last, and experts say candidates will each need to raise $20 million by the middle of this year just to stay in the game. A federal election official pointed out that this presidential race will be the costliest election in American history and that to be taken seriously, any candidate will probably have to have a war chest of at least $100 million by the end of 2007.

The estimated price tag of campaigning for president has risen significantly in recent years. One source reported that if the costs for both Democratic and Republican campaigns are added together (for the presidential primaries, general election, and political conventions) the costs have more than doubled from a reported $450 million in 1996 to $650 million in 2000, and more than $1 billion in 2004).

I'm all for democracy and freedom of choice, but at what cost should we elect a president - or senator or mayor? At every election level campaign financing continues to run amok and, of course, those who benefit most - our elected officials - have done little, but cursory changes, to rein it in.

Take for instance a potential ambitious candidate's desire for the presidency in the form of "exploratory committees." That sly tactic allows the hopeful to raise money and travel without having to follow financial restrictions mandated by federal law.

Several key states, including four with a combined 130 electoral votes - Florida, Texas, New York and California - are likely to join 13 other states that will hold primaries on what could be called "Super Duper Tuesday," on February 5, 2008.

Those 17 states account for more than half of the nation's population and, unsurprisingly, a majority of the convention delegates needed for the parties' presidential nominees. Therefore, after the votes are tallied from those primaries - nine months before the general election - it's all but certain that both major party nominees will be known. Consequently, that may perhaps result in months of bitter campaigning that would leave a bitter taste in potential voters minds. In addition to drastic election reform there have to be rules that limit the presidential race to no more than 12 months before the election.

The presidential campaign "cycle" gets longer - and more expensive - every four years. The quadrennial sweepstakes now takes almost three years from start to finish and one wonders if office holders jockeying for position become too preoccupied, therefore distracting them from their lawmaking responsibilities.

It remains to be seen if next February's de facto national primary serves the nation well. If nothing else, it'll allow states other than just Iowa and New Hampshire to have a major contribution. If that proves sensible, voters should pressure representatives to seriously consider creating a National Primary Day, which could be in May, a mere six months before the national election, giving the top candidates plenty of time to debate and show voters who deserves to sit in the White House the following January.

Barely 50 percent of those eligible votes in the presidential race and less than 40 percent, more often than not, participates in the primaries. With a long process - and short attention spans - the majority of the electorate probably doesn't start paying attention until just before the election anyway, so why waste all that time, money and effort if hardly anyone's listening?

If the process was reformed and abbreviated - eighteen months of mudslinging is TOO much - it isn't likely to offer more qualified nominees, but, at least, more voters might feel they can make a difference, which would cure AVS - Apathetic Voter Syndrome.